Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, involved two writ petitions filed by daily-wage employees of the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, formerly a Municipal Council. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.9868 of 2017 were led by Pramila Vilas Hannure and others, while Writ Petition No.10964 of 2017 was filed by Santosh Anandrao Nalge and others. The respondents were the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban Development Department; the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department-2; and the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner. The petitioners sought writs of certiorari to quash communications dated 03.04.2017 and 07.01.2017 issued by the Desk Officer, Urban Development Department, and directions to make them permanent on available vacant posts as per earlier Industrial Court judgments. The background facts, as recorded, showed that the petitioners had been working on daily wages with the Municipal Council, which was later transformed into a Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. They had completed 240 days in a calendar year and continued for years together. They filed complaints before the Industrial Court under Section 28(1) read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, seeking permanency and consequential benefits. The Industrial Court allowed these complaints by separate judgments dated 18.02.1999 and 17.07.1998. The Corporation challenged these judgments in Writ Petition Nos.3333/1999 and 3339/1999 before the High Court. Those writ petitions were admitted, but the operation of the Industrial Court judgments was not stayed. During those proceedings, the in-charge Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation filed affidavits stating that out of 40 employees only 3 were in service, and out of 336 employees only 212 were made permanent, with 117 employees not reporting to duty. A coordinate bench of the High Court partly allowed those writ petitions on 05.01.2017 and 08.09.2016 respectively, holding that since the respondent No.3 was a Municipal Corporation, it could not have itself created posts and therefore could not be held guilty of any unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court judgments were modified: the declaration of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV was set aside, and the Corporation was directed to forward proposals of the 117 complainants to the Directorate of Municipal Administration within four weeks. The present writ petitions were filed thereafter, challenging the subsequent communications of the Desk Officer and seeking enforcement of permanency. The court heard both petitions together, made rule returnable forthwith, and with the joint request of parties, heard them finally at admission. The judgment was reserved on 09.12.2021 and pronounced on 04.01.2022. The extracted text does not include the final reasoning and operative directions, so the final decision and ratio decidendi cannot be determined from the provided portion.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency of Daily-Wage Workers and Municipal Corporation's Power to Create Posts - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28(1) read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV - Petitioners were daily-wage employees of a Municipal Council later converted into a Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act; they filed complaints after completing 240 days and being continued for years; the Industrial Court allowed the complaints by separate judgments dated 18.02.1999 and 17.07.1998 granting permanency. A coordinate bench of the High Court in earlier writ petitions held that a Municipal Corporation could not itself create posts and therefore could not be held guilty of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV; it modified the Industrial Court judgments to remove the declaration of ULP under item 9 and directed the Corporation to forward proposals of 117 workers to the Directorate of Municipal Administration. The present petition sought to quash subsequent communications refusing permanency and to enforce the Industrial Court judgments. The court heard the petitions finally and made rule returnable forthwith. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned communications dated 03.04.2017 and 07.01.2017 refusing permanency were legal and whether the petitioners were entitled to be made permanent on vacant posts as per the Industrial Court judgments.
Law Points
- Industrial Court can grant permanency under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Municipal Corporation cannot itself create posts
- High Court can modify Industrial Court orders
- daily-wage workers completing 240 days may seek regularisation
- State Government approval required for creation of posts
